Tim Duncan and 2nd option stats in the series the Spurs got eliminated in

[midnightpulp]

Player A .415FG, 24.6ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.8apg, 1.4stl

Player B .572FG, 33ppg, 15.8rpg, 4.8apg, 3.4blk

Who's team is it? If you take away the names it's pretty easy.

The other 2 championship years the disparity is even worse. So Kobe has 1 championship as the leaddog while Tim has 4.

Tim>>>>Kobe. Glad that's finally settled

B-B-But, Shaq couldn't hit a freethrow! And Kobe let Shaq shine to keep him happy!

Quote Lakaluva: When we got swept by the Spurs in '99, I turned to my friend and told him Kobe was the best player in the league.

[history2b]

when they were attempting to repeat:

2000 - DNP

2004:

.472FG, 20.6ppg, 12.3rpg, 3.3apg, 1.6blk

2nd option (Tony Parker):

.380FG, 16.6ppg, 6apg, 1.6stl

2006:

.555FG, 32.8ppg, 11.7rpg, 3.7apg, 2.57blk

2nd option (Manu Ginobili):

.488FG, 21.2ppg, 4.2rpg, 2rpg, 2.28stl

2008:

.425FG, 22.4ppg, 17.4rpg, 4.8apg, 2blk

2nd option (Manu was supposed to be the 2nd option, but since he was terrible in that series, I'll include Tony Parker's stats instead):

.476FG, 21.2ppg, 5.6apg, .80stl

Now for comparison's sake, let's take a look at Kobe Bryant and his "2nd option's" stats in the series where the Lakers repeated or were eliminated as they attempted to repeat.

2001:

.415FG, 24.6ppg, 7.8rpg, 5.8apg, 1.4stl

2nd option (Shaquille O'Neal):

.572FG, 33ppg, 15.8rpg, 4.8apg, 3.4blk

2002:

.505FG, 26.7ppg, 4.6rpg, 4.2apg, 1.5stl

2nd option (Shaq):

.596FG, 38.7ppg, 12.25rpg, 3.75apg, 2.75blk

2003:

.434FG, 32.3ppg, 5rpg, 3.5apg, .66stl

2nd option (Shaq):

.636FG, 25.1ppg, 14.3rpg, 3.6apg, 2.6blk

2010:

.408FG, 28.5ppg, 8rpg, 3.8apg, 2.14stl

2nd option (Pau Gasol):

.478FG, 18.6ppg, 11.6rpg, 3.7apg, 2.6blk


As you can see, Kobe Bryant was outplayed by his second option in every repeat campaign except the most recent, while Duncan, who gets criticized by the uneducated basketball fan for not being able to repeat, outplayed his second option in every series. Furthermore, when you compare Kobe's stats with Duncan's, they're relatively about equal (I can show with advanced stats that Duncan's stats are superior, but I know how we all hate advanced stats).

Do I think Duncan deserves some of the blame for not being able to repeat? Sure. If he plays up to his standards in '04, the Spurs get past the Lakers and have a shot against the Pistons for the O'Brien. But Tony Parker deserves considerably more criticism for playing outstanding basketball the first two games and then proceeding to disappear the last 4 games because he got mind ed by Phil Jackson's "pack-the-paint" defensive strategy.

On the other hand, when Kobe had a subpar series, his 2nd option always stepped up and either played near his season averages or raised his game beyond. Duncan never had that luxury.

That said, what I'm really trying to illuminate is the erroneous belief that a repeat, or even winning a championship, somehow adds to an individual player's legacy.

The media would like us to believe that, because they can take a player who has achieved every individual accomplishment possible (Jordan in '90, Lebron today) and wrap an interesting story line around the only thing he's failed to achieve. This leads to all sorts of hand wringing by whichever crew of talking heads are analyzing the situation, "Does he deserve a place among the all-time greats if he's never won a championship?" Dramatic discussion ensues and all the mouthbreathing fans who accept this kind of soundbite analysis as legitimate tune in en masse.

Truth be told, at the end of the day, championships are a team accomplishment, and no amount of clever advertising and insubstantial basketball analysis that celebrates and focuses on the individual player is going to change that fact.

Somebody is going to great lengths in order to justify his fanboyism.

Unfortunately the argument is loaded to fallacies making it easy to dismiss the fanboy's rant, namely the idea that you only compare "2nd options" in order to prove what he is trying to prove. Why stop at 2nd options? What about 3rd options? Want to compare those?

[John Amaechi]

Somebody is going to great lengths in order to justify his fanboyism.

Unfortunately the argument is loaded to fallacies making it easy to dismiss the fanboy's rant, namely the idea that you only compare "2nd options" in order to prove what he is trying to prove. Why stop at 2nd options? What about 3rd options? Want to compare those?

My parents are gone tonight babe!

[Jose Canseco]

It's interesting that T-Mac's 38 playoff games is too small a sample size but in the original post, you only focus on one playoff series of each of the repeat campaigns of Duncan and Kobe which both are even smaller sample sizes than T-Mac's 38 playoff games.

Something you don't factor in as much when drawing these comparisons is that both Duncan and Shaq are bigs who play mostly inside so of course they are going to be more efficient in FG% and of course they are going to have more impressive rebounding stats. While Kobe and whoever you want to call Duncan's "second option" are perimeter players who won't generally shoot a high percentage, although Parker is an exception before he started shooting more jump shots. Now Kobe still lacks efficient shooting, however 45% FG shooting for a guard is roughly equivalent to 50% shooting for a dominant big. (As a side, that's why Jordan is the greatest all time, because in his earlier championship runs, he was shooting 50% from the field, although when he incorporated more three point shooting in his game, we saw his FG% drop to a more mortal 46% shooting in the playoffs.)

But let's look at it in a different way. Here are the entire playoff stats of both Duncan and Kobe in their campaign playoff runs to repeat.

Duncan
40 games
39.1 MPG
22.5 PPG
12.4 RPG
3.3 APG
2.0 BPG
50.5% FG
66.4% FT

Kobe
70 games
42.6 MPG
29.0 PPG
6.6 RPG
5.3 APG
1.4 SPG
44.9% FG
37.5% 3PT
81.3% FT

Now forget that Kobe's teams in those games were 52-18 while Duncan's teams in those games were 22-18. Don't compare the stats to teammates on their teams, just the two players themselves. Take the individual stats as they are. It's basically a toss-up who was the better individual player.

Kobe put in work in those "repeat campaigns." Your best avenue to discredit him was to take "only" the NBA Finals playoff series and to compare them to Shaq's stats. Shaq was dominant in the NBA Finals and still did very good but less dominant damage against the 2003 Spurs. But you also look at it as Shaq being much better than Kobe (which is arguable when you look at the entire playoffs instead of just the last playoff series played in each of those seasons), but don't realize that Kobe put up dominant numbers regardless of being compared to Shaq. Close to 30 PPG, nearly 7 RPG for a wing player, 5 APG for a non-point guard. And his shooting numbers all around are actually very good for a perimeter player. All the while playing next to as dominant player as Shaq was for three of those four playoff runs.

I do think this thread is part of your Kobe hate act/shtick like many of your other threads and posts. And I do think it's stale. Anything to discredit Kobe and/or troll Laker fans. If that's really not your intent or purpose, fine. It sure comes across as it is.

[midnightpulp]

Somebody is going to great lengths in order to justify his fanboyism.

Unfortunately the argument is loaded to fallacies making it easy to dismiss the fanboy's rant, namely the idea that you only compare "2nd options" in order to prove what he is trying to prove. Why stop at 2nd options? What about 3rd options? Want to compare those?

Sure, bring out Manu's stats in '04, who was the 3rd option that year and compare them to Karl Malone.
Compare Odom with Manu in the '08 series.

And anyway your Kobe fanboy ass slices it, Shaq+3rd option>Manu + Tony.

[Giuseppe]

2b, comin' out of the risin' sun.

[Koolaid_Man]

Let's stay on topic. I know rape is perpetually on your mind (as it was that day when you were driving out to the Chuckbox), but that has nothing to do with the content of this thread.

but I will tell you what does... you been anal sore ever since Luva posted the thread about Kobe ting on Duncan's legacy yet again...ya know the post where I exposed Duncan as being a weak first option vs Kobe as a 2nd option. Dude it's over I didn't read your bull argument above but I already know whatever it is...it is born out of a massive sore asshole...

you really gotta dig deep to type all that for what...for nothing...bottom ing line is this....Kobe is considered ( by everyone outside of San Antonio) a better player, leader, and champion than Duncan. Duncan's legacy will pale in comparison to Kobe when it's all said and done. No one compares Duncan to the GOAT...they do compare Kobe...Duncan has no upside...Kobe does....San Antonio will be fighting for a 7 seed just so they can avoid LA at #1...don't believe me ask Popovich about that fear of LA... after all he is on record....

so no matter what bull analysis you dream up after masturbating your asshole with tarter sauce...you my ace boob coon are still a ing loser along with dat pussy ass team you cheer-lead for.

ohh and Luva got a new shiney surprise for you coming....as soon as he logs on....

Here's a little something for you to marinate on:

[history2b]

Sure, bring out Manu's stats in '04, who was the 3rd option that year and compare them to Karl Malone.
Compare Odom with Manu in the '08 series.

And anyway your Kobe fanboy ass slices it, Shaq+3rd option>Manu + Tony.

Please by all means add those stats into the equation... but also use 2006 stats too. That year will be an interest excuse train.

But then why stop at 3rd options? What about 4th options too?

[Koolaid_Man]

ohh and I forgot to add one thing....The only reason Duncan wasn't accused of rape is because his pussy ass married a white ...He decided it was better to pay her whereas Kobe had more foresight and wanted to treat Katie-Girl with respect... ;-)

[Giuseppe]

but I will tell you what does... you been anal sore ever since Luva posted the thread about Kobe ting on Duncan's legacy yet again.

Kool is correct here, Mid. You have been bushy-tailed & flat-earred ever since.

Kool Aid Man

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE=Jose Canseco;4699447]

It's interesting that T-Mac's 38 playoff games is too small a sample size but in the original post, you only focus on one playoff series of each of the repeat campaigns of Duncan and Kobe which both are even smaller sample sizes than T-Mac's 38 playoff games.

You brought up T-mac in a discussion comparing Kobe and Duncan. I understand the point you were trying to make, but I think you're not grasping mine: that team success doesn't tell the whole story of player's impact, greatness, etc. And FWIW, I'll even standby that despite T-mac's small sample size, he was a great playoff performer in those days. Kinda hard to advance when Darrell Armstrong and Gordon Giracek were your second options at one point.

Something you don't factor in as much when drawing these comparisons is that both Duncan and Shaq are bigs who play mostly inside so of course they are going to be more efficient in FG% and of course they are going to have more impressive rebounding stats. While Kobe and whoever you want to call Duncan's "second option" are perimeter players who won't generally shoot a high percentage, although Parker is an exception before he started shooting more jump shots. Now Kobe still lacks efficient shooting, however 45% FG shooting for a guard is roughly equivalent to 50% shooting for a dominant big. (As a side, that's why Jordan is the greatest all time, because in his earlier championship runs, he was shooting 50% from the field, although when he incorporated more three point shooting in his game, we saw his FG% drop to a more mortal 46% shooting in the playoffs.)

That's why I believe bigmen are intrinsically greater than guards, because they can impact the game in more areas.

But let's look at it in a different way. Here are the entire playoff stats of both Duncan and Kobe in their campaign playoff runs to repeat.

Duncan
40 games
39.1 MPG
22.5 PPG
12.4 RPG
3.3 APG
2.0 BPG
50.5% FG
66.4% FT

Kobe
70 games
42.6 MPG
29.0 PPG
6.6 RPG
5.3 APG
1.4 SPG
44.9% FG
37.5% 3PT
81.3% FT

Now forget that Kobe's teams in those games were 52-18 while Duncan's teams in those games were 22-18. Don't compare the stats to teammates on their teams, just the two players themselves. Take the individual stats as they are. It's basically a toss-up who was the better individual player.

Thank you. You finally understand. Their stats and relative performances were about equal, which I agree with, but since "Kobe repeated" his stats are more glorified, his legacy bolstered. So if their stats were about equal, why did Kobe's team repeat and Duncan's didn't?

Kobe put in work in those "repeat campaigns."

Never said he didn't.

[midnightpulp]

Please by all means add those stats into the equation... but also use 2006 stats too. That year will be an interest excuse train.

But then why stop at 3rd options? What about 4th options too?

Simple question: Would you trade 3 peat Shaq and Rick Fox for 04, 06, 08 Manu, Tony Parker, and Bruce Bowen?

[history2b]

Simple question: Would you trade 3 peat Shaq and Rick Fox for 04, 06, 08 Manu, Tony Parker, and Bruce Bowen?

Another fallacy. Kobe is a perimeter player not a post player so why would I trade Kobe's post player, which everyone with a bball IQ above 43 knows is the formula for winning basketball games, for a bunch of perimeter players?

Are you some kind of moron?

[Jose Canseco]

There was still no point to compare Kobe's stats to Shaq's. Kobe was every bit as important to those early 2000 Laker teams and your post whether intended or not comes across as discrediting Kobe.

The initial point suffers from your insistence to make irrelevant comparisons. So what if Duncan's second options weren't as great as Kobe's second options? That makes as much difference as teams repeating as champs or not. It's neither Kobe's nor Duncan's credit or fault who there teammates were.

You don't even realize that your efforts to discredit a subjective opinion about the greatness of a player based on being able to repeat isn't refuted by the evidence you provided. It's an "intrinsic" and intangible accomplishment for a great player to be able to help lead a team to repeat as champions. It's something that should be admired and praised. It won't necessarily mean one player who repeats is greater than another that doesn't. Isiah Thomas wasn't a better player than Larry Bird. But it's still an impressive feat nonetheless and I don't see a problem with it being mentioned as a distinction among great players who are relatively equal.

I think you get mad over stupid Laker fans way too much.

[midnightpulp]

Another fallacy. Kobe is a perimeter player not a post player so why would I trade Kobe's post player, which everyone with a bball IQ above 43 knows is the formula for winning basketball games, for a bunch of perimeter players?

Are you some kind of moron?

Let me spell out it out in simple terms so you're tiny brain can comprehend my point:

3 peat Shaq + Derek Fisher (the 3rd best offensive player on the Lakers) > than 04, 06, 08 Manu and Tony.

Yes or no?

[Jose Canseco]

You can't compare a dominant center to a very good PG or SG.

Why would you trade Shaq for Manu when Kobe already covers the SG position?

The hypothetical just doesn't make sense.

[midnightpulp]

There was still no point to compare Kobe's stats to Shaq's.

Yes there was. It was to show that in those particular series that essentially determined if either respective team was going to repeat, that Kobe's second option provided significantly more help than Tim's. '04 especially, where Tony Parker shot a putrid .380. If Duncan had an offensive second option like Tracy McGrady, he repeats without question.

[history2b]

There was still no point to compare Kobe's stats to Shaq's. Kobe was every bit as important to those early 2000 Laker teams and your post whether intended or not comes across as discrediting Kobe.

The initial point suffers from your insistence to make irrelevant comparisons. So what if Duncan's second options weren't as great as Kobe's second options? That doesn't as much difference as teams repeating as champs or not. It's neither Kobe's nor Duncan's credit or fault who there teammates were.

You don't even realize that your efforts to discredit a subjective opinion about the greatness of a player based on being able to repeat isn't refuted by the evidence you provided. It's an "intrinsic" and intangible accomplishment for a great player to be able to help lead a team to repeat as champions. It's something that should be admired and praised. It won't necessarily mean one player who repeats is greater than another that doesn't. Isiah Thomas wasn't a better player than Larry Bird. But it's still an impressive feat nonetheless and I don't see a problem with it being mentioned as a distinction among great players who are relatively equal.

I think you get mad over stupid Laker fans way too much.

At least construct a coherent logical argument that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the game of basketball first.

Tim Duncan never repeated, ever. This is a fact. One that doesn't sit well with our resident fan boy. In order to appease his own frustrations on the matter he brings forth an incredibly weak argument to prove Kobe had more help than Duncan did despite Kobe winning back to back with 2 entirely different teams over the course of 2 mini-eras of the NBA.

Kobe Bryant has repeated as a champion 3 times and is currently working on a 4th.

Tim Duncan never repeated in his life and never will again.

The scar is deep.

[midnightpulp]

At least construct a coherent logical argument that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the game of basketball first.

Tim Duncan never repeated, ever. This is a fact. One that doesn't sit well with our resident fan boy. In order to appease his own frustrations on the matter he brings forth an incredibly weak argument to prove Kobe had more help than Duncan did despite Kobe winning back to back with 2 entirely different teams over the course of 2 mini-eras of the NBA.

Kobe Bryant has repeated as a champion 3 times and is currently working on a 4th.

Tim Duncan never repeated in his life and never will again.

The scar is deep.

Yes or no. Were Kobe's teammates during the 3 peat collectively better than Duncan's in 04, 06, 08?

And I don't really need to prove anything. Since he entered the league, no other superstar has played with better players than Kobe Bryant.

[history2b]

Let me spell out it out in simple terms so you're tiny brain can comprehend my point:

3 peat Shaq + Derek Fisher (the 3rd best offensive player on the Lakers) > than 04, 06, 08 Manu and Tony.

Yes or no?

Why was it a 3 on 3 tournament? Why are you stopping at 2 or 3 unless you are a moron who thinks basketball is a 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 game.

Do you still think it makes sense to trade a teams sole post player for a bunch of perimeter players in order to make a weak point?

[midnightpulp]

Why was it a 3 on 3 tournament? Why are you stopping at 2 or 3 unless you are a moron who thinks basketball is a 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 game.

Do you still think it makes sense to trade a teams sole post player for a bunch of perimeter players in order to make a weak point?

Yes or no? Do you think Kobe's teammates during the 3 peat were collectively better than Duncan's during 04, 06, 08?

[history2b]

Yes or no. Were Kobe's teammates during the 3 peat collectively better than Duncan's in 04, 06, 08?

And I don't really need to prove anything. Since he entered the league, no other superstar has played with better players than Kobe Bryant.

I couldn't say for sure one way or another. Might be the case for one year but not the next. I do know that Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson are 4-1 versus Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich head to head in the playoffs.

I do know that Tim Duncan has had the pieces in order to be successful since the first day he stepped onto the NBA hardwood; in the form of all time great centers, all time great perimeter international players, all time great defenders and all time great role players as well as an all time great coach.

So to play the imaginary, immeasurable "I think player X had a little more help than player Y" game is nothing more than exercise in futility.

[midnightpulp]

I couldn't say for sure one way or another. Might be the case for one year but not the next. I do know that Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson are 4-1 versus Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich head to head in the playoffs.

I do know that Tim Duncan has had the pieces in order to be successful since the first day he stepped onto the NBA hardwood; in the form of all time great centers, all time great perimeter international players, all time great defenders and all time great role players as well as an all time great coach.

So to play the imaginary, immeasurable "I think player X had a little more help than player Y" game is nothing more than exercise in futility.

Taking a cue from you here. So is the game played one-on-one with only one coach on the sidelines?

Why don't you make a sensical statement and say, "The Lakers are 4-1 since '00 against the Spurs."

Why do you have this insistence on exalting the individual over the team? And how can you logically construct an argument, for any player, that championships add to personal legacy when NBA basketball is play as a team.

You're supposed to be this great purveyor of logic and truth, and crediting the individual for a team accomplishment is illogical.

[history2b]

Taking a cue from you here. So is the game played one-on-one with only one coach on the sidelines?

Why don't you make a sensical statement and say, "The Lakers are 4-1 since '00 against the Spurs."

Why do you have this insistence on exalting the individual over the team? And how can you logically construct an argument, for any player, that championships add to personal legacy when NBA basketball is play as a team.

You're supposed to be this great purveyor of logic and truth, and crediting the individual for a team accomplishment is illogical.

Because I didn't use Kobe and Phil as a unit of measure like you did with "2nd options." You tried to use the "2nd option" argument to compare the relative contributions of those respective players as a unit of measure which of course we all know is a fallacy.

Whereas stating a fact like Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant are 4-1 versus Gregg Popovich and Tim Duncan is just that, a fact.

Amazing that you are that stupid you cannot enough make the distinction on your own. No bother, I am here to help you.

I haven't exalted any player over the team anyway, another fabrication on your part but I do acknowledge the fact that winning championships does lend to the personal legacy of individual players because that is the ultimate measure of success. Why wouldn't it?

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE=history2b;4699632]

Because I didn't use Kobe and Phil as a unit of measure like you did with "2nd options." You tried to use the "2nd option" argument to compare the relative contributions of those respective players as a unit of measure which of course we all know is a fallacy.

Whereas stating a fact like Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant are 4-1 versus Gregg Popovich and Tim Duncan is just that, a fact.

Amazing that you are that stupid you cannot enough make the distinction on your own. No bother, I am here to help you.

Keep spinning. Unlike you, I read between the lines, and what you're implying is that Kobe has some kind of personal victory over Tim Duncan. Let's ignore the facts that they play different positions and that the surrounding team had influence on the outcome. I can easily say, Nash 2-1 versus Kobe in the playoffs. Does that statement mean anything? No. You just like saying Kobe 4-1 over Duncan because it irritates Spurs fans.

I do acknowledge the fact that winning championships does lend to the personal legacy of individual players because that is the ultimate measure of success. Why wouldn't it?

Why wouldn't it? Because it's inherent contradiction that an individual player should be lauded over another player because of team success. This isn't golf or tennis.

Take this extreme example.

Player A has made it to 6 Finals. He's lost every one, but averaged 35ppg, 20rpg, on 60%FG, played great defense, and observation suggests he didn't negatively affect the outcome by choking in some fashion.

Player B plays the same position. He's won 6 championships, defeating Player A heads up for those championships, but his averages were 25ppg, 9rpg, on 49%FG and his defense mediocre.

Who's the better player? (Let's assume they have an equal amount of regular season accomplishments and similar regular season stats). Who should rank higher on the all-time list?

I'm sorry, but the "he has more rings argument" simplifies things way too much. But I understand it's an argument that is currently en vogue for you Kobe-fans because he recently one upped Shaq and Duncan.

You weren't signing this same tune when Kobe was in the lottery, incessantly caterwauling about how your hero has "no help," which was true, but when I try to make the argument that Duncan's help wasn't sufficient enough to repeat, I'm a "fanboy" and "illogical."

Classic Laker double-think.